Hopenhagen or Dopenhagen?

Hopenhagen or Dopenhagen?

In the run-up to the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP 15) in Copenhagen, an eclectic group made up primarily of corporations and media outlets put forward the notion of “Hopenhagen.” The following is extracted from their mission statement:

“Hopenhagen is a movement, a moment and a chance at a new beginning. The hope that in Copenhagen this December we can build a better future for our planet and a more “>goals.

Climate scientist Dr. James Hansen of NASA states that we have already passed what is considered the threshold for “maximum permissible concentration of carbon dioxide in the “>insurance industry. In March, the journal Science reported that sustained atmospheric warming projected for the coming centuries could ultimately produce a worldwide rise in sea level of 12 meters compared with today’s levels. Canada’s coastline happens to be the world’s longest at 243,792 kilometers (or 151,485 miles), including the coastline of the country’s 52,455 islands.

Ironically, the government’s plan apparently reaches its objectives at the projected 2050 half-meter sea-level rise. The environment minister claims he wants “sensible solutions,” but is a phased-in approach spread over four decades sensible, when the best available science tells us decisive action needs to be taken now to attenuate anticipated future impacts?

As Dr. Corinne Le Quere points out, global carbon emissions increased by almost 30 percent between “>climate talks.”

There now appears to be a concerted effort, via espionage, to undermine and attack climate scientists and their research. As reported by Judith Lavoie of the Victoria Times Colonist, here in Canada over the last year, there have been two break-ins at Dr. Andrew Weaver’s University of Victoria office and several attempts to hack into the “>objective knowledge.”

McKnight concludes, “Climate denial may turn out to be the world’s most deadly public relations campaign.” Indeed, implementing politicized, ineffective half-measures to address climate disruption would essentially constitute a game of global Russian roulette.

Reflecting on the Canadian government’s continued foot-dragging on the climate change file, as well as its predilection for “shouting down critics and environmental activists” as a December 11 Toronto Star